As a Studebaker enthusiast myself, I really enjoy your series! My first new car was a 1961 ark convertible (61VL6) and at that time, being 19 years old, I was definitely into the mechanical side, and increasing performance. As I dig back in my memory bank, I believe your engine was an older one, as in 1962, Studebaker went to a full flow oil filter, which screwed onto the lower driver's side of the block. That was also the year they went to the new type intake manifold and the Carter AFB carburetor instead of the older WCFB, which I believe is what your engine has on it. The AFB was a big advance in m,y eyes, as it was available in higher CFM, and much easier to change the jets and the metering rods, without even removing the carb. Lots of fun, and fairly cheap to work on!
I had a '62 Hawk, and a '62 Lark, both with V-8 engines, and they both had bypass filters. My '64 Cruiser had a full flow filter. The AFB was an excellent carb. If you look at the 2bbl manifold, it is made to be a 4 bbl manifold. It looks like you could just mill the area flat where the carb sits, drill and tap holes for the bolts, and drill out the passages for the throttle plates, and you have a Studebaker 4 bbl manifold.
@@garylangley4502 You probably have earlier production engines. Studebaker (similar to Chrysler) incorporated many running changes, and I'm assuming the 1962 model year started out with engines built in 1961. In 1962, while still in College, I worked weekends in a dealership, and being low on the totem pole, I did a lot of grease jobs and oil changes. This is where I first became aware of the full flow filters, and incidentally of the need to grease the bell crank pivot point. As access to this point was through a hole in the frame for the purpose, this point often was ignored, leading to the infamous "failure" of the bearing. Here, too there were differences, with some being sleeve bearings, and others being needle bearings. You're dead on with the carb and manifold issues...a relatively easy conversion. And yes, I too really like the AFB, which in my opinion is the simplest and best 4 barrel made for the application. BTW, the AFB intake manifold cost about $20 through the parts department in those days. Wish I had bought one or more of the R4 manifolds while they could be had new!
@@neil6212 Interesting!! I did not know that the change was mid production in '62. The '64 I had used the sleeve bushings, and they were worn. In my '61 Lark, the grease fitting was broken off in the bell crank, but I used a needle adapter and I was able to grease the fitting. Apparently the previous owner did the same thing because it was well greased when I got it. I remember that Lark having 22 grease fittings. I bought that car in 1972, and at one point the oil filter blew up while I was on the freeway. It ruined the 6 cylinder engine. I found a '55 flathead 6 that I put in there, but it had oil pressure problems, however I drove it for about a year. At the time, the car had little value, but since it was from San Bernardino, it had absolutely no rust on it. I found a wrecked 1960 Cadillac and saw how similar the engine is to the Studebaker V8. So my friends and I put the 390 Cadillac engine and Hydramatic transmission in the Lark. It was surprisingly easy to do.
@@garylangley4502 I'm with you on the Caddy implant! The Studebaker V8 was virtually copied from the 50s Cadillac, so it isn't really too surprising that the install was easy! And it probably was a rocket with the gearing being in the 3.92 to 4.10 range, although the Dana 27 axle probably wouldn't like much abuse. My first new car was a 1961 Lark convertible, a 61VL6! Traded it off on a '65 Mustang 289HP. Later, I was able to buy a 61SL6 with a bad transmission. It was the same color (Ermine White) and in good shape body wise. This was in 1868. Being single, I elected to do a frame off restoration. As it ended up, I bought a wrecked '64 GT Hawk, which had an R2 with 4 spd and the usual toys. I salvaged many parts from it, and although the left front suspension was damaged, and the fuel pump broken off, the disk brake was still in good shape. I rebuilt the engine, and do a "heart-lung transplant" into the Lark, using the front and rear sway bars, the Dana 44 axle with 3.54 TT gearing, and pretty much created a monster! By the way, to do a V8 engine swap[ in the Lark, you had only to swap the left and right front motor mounts with each other, and it becomes a bolt in, although it will be necessary to use the V8 throttle linkage and re route the gas line. On R2 engines, you also need to add a fuel return line from the stock fuel filter to the tank.
Hell's bells! The standard non-power-kit (two-barrel single exhaust) is rated at 210 bhp gross. You.'ve overbored to 298 cubes. You're running a four-barrel carb, which would be rated, as you said, at 225 gross bhp. 163? Not exactly what one would expect.
From what I've seen those engines do at the drag strip, I think those numbers were underrated at the factory! Those Dyno numbers seemed really low. Still, great series of videos. I'd like to see you rebuild a Rambler 327 or 287 and Dyno them
The same basic engine powered an 1962 Avanti at Bonneville to 168 mph. That version was an R3 with hotter cam and Paxton supercharger putting out 335 HP according to factory numbers. Not bad for a stock car in 1962 !
Granatelli wouldn't let an R3 leave the Paxton shop 'til it had posted 411 horsepower on the dyno. Studebaker never advertised horsepower ratings for the Avanti engines, but the numbers bandied about with great authority are generally considered to be ridiculously understated.
I have the Dyno Pulls that Studebaker engineers performed in 1956 when the 289 was introduced. The pulls were with a Carter WCFB carb and 8.5:1 compression ratio. The engine was tested in all configurations. This engine seems down about 15 HP from Studebaker engineering numbers for a pull in the same configuration with exhaust manifolds and water pump . Perhaps the timing needed to be advanced a bit?
Keep in mind it did not have a new cam so that is down a bit. And you are right, advancing the timing could add some, but the owner was not interested in super performance.
Excellent series on rebuilding a Studebaker V-8. Nice thorough job! You cut no corners for a quality rebuild. Yes I understand this was not built as a performance engine and the owner didn't want the timing advanced. Still it is an interesting comparison to Studebaker's engineering dyno runs. Their runs with a Carter WCFB 4 barrel , 8.2 CR, timing 8 degrees advanced, netted 208 HP @ 4,400 RPMS and 300 ft lbs of torque at 2,900 RPMs . This was with no accessories and no exhaust except for manifolds. H P required to drive the water pump only is 5 HP at 4,500 RPMs According to Studebaker engineering figures. The 289 developed 174 net HP @ 4,100 RPMs with all accessories and full exhaust installed.
A couple of comments, Studebaker published max. hp at 4500 (500 higher) and max torque (500 lower) at 2800. Both of these numbers differ by about 500 RPM from this dyno run. Did notice when you were quoting the AF ratio's that you said lean when you meant rich IMHO, although it was running lean for max power. The carb air bleed jets may have been able to be adjusted to get the torque numbers in line with the factory rpm. In this design the idle air bleeds (top) effect both the idle and main jets. It would be interesting to be able to adjust the timing and af ratio at 100 rpm intervals like what is done to tune a modern engine for racing, and see the results. See if it's possible to tune these old mechanical methods to emulate the precise control on modern machinery. Of course outside air pressure and temperature would be difficult to tune for. I believe these old carb manufacturers attempted to do just that, thus the reason for so many part numbers. Not a good idea to just slap a carb for one application onto another. OK enough. Thanks for this series as I have a 1957 supercharged Golden Hawk 289.
Great stuff Ron. We did adjust the air bleed and mixture screws, but at higher RPM's they don't do much. It took quite awhile to get it tuned. If there were a better way my dyno guy would have done it. He does 1000+ HP motors all the time. Thank you for your comment.
Great work! Those WCFB carbs are tricky, like the metering rod adjustment etc. I've done quite a few of these on mid 50's Mopars, they do work great once dialed in, but they can be a little fussy.
I assume standard cam, maybe 8:1 CR, and looks like an old WCFB carb. Guy in Georgia dynoed a 289 with 10:1 CR, R1 cam, a 500 Edelbrock carb and some headwork. Got 240 horsepower. Assuming the dynoes are equally accurate, that's 80 more HP with a hotter cam, more CR, headwork and a better carb. ??? Could be, I suppose. . . .
You are correct. The only way to get more out of it is a custom grind cam and larger valves. The owner was interested in a fresh rebuild that was reliable, not a power increase.
Very informative series. I have dabbled with an engine or two and now have my sights on a little 4 cylinder that I want to get running. I have no formal training but I learned a lot from you. Thanks.
Pete, I really enjoyed this video series. I am a Studebaker guy and own a 1962 pickup with a 289 and I think your step by step rebuild is a valuable guide for people working on these engines. On the subject of the lower-than-rating horsepower result, I'm wondering if the valve lift was reduced by re-using the original cam?
That could be possible, but very slightly. The valves are very small and it was not build for the 4 barrel. I'm thinking different heads would do the trick.
My 20 year old 302 with over 280,000 kilometres on it has 248HP (185kw), never been opened, has pacemaker headers, K&N Filter and sports exhaust. It's coming out soon for a rebuild and I hope to have an engine dyno video later for posting. Then a chassis dyno video when it gets tuned for best effort.
4 degrees of initial advance is way to little. 14 would have been better. The maximum mechanical advance on that engine should have liked around 34 degrees. I noticed you didn't check timing advance at all. Also, the carb problem was a super common problem of the jets were reversed. The 89's should have been in the secondary and the 72's should have been in the primaries. I'll bet the car will run sloppy and rich at part throttle. Way too much primary jetting. When the engine is installed, advance the timing at a warmed up idle by vacuum. Your highest reading is where the flame front travel is doing the most work. Then check the maximum mechanical advance and adjust the timing stop until you have 34 to 36 degrees. All timing should be in by 3000 rpms. Lots of tuning to do.
Really looking forward to seeing the Studebaker Hawk back on the road video. Seeing the engine running on the dyno was terrific. Perhaps Studebaker fudged the rating back in 1962 to compete with the big three. Makes me wonder if the supercharged version was really 275 horsepower?
$720 compared to a new engine due to detonation is cheap insurance. Never believe advertised horse power from the 60, sometimes it's less and sometimes its more.
The Engine is called 1.6dci and Mercedes uses it as Well in the B, A, CLA class. Hope you get to See those engines in the US cause I have heard you're not allowed to import french cars.
This engine is 54 years old. It was never designed for HP. There are many new engines that out perform it. Thank you for sharing that information with us.
I have a copy of the original Dyno pulls that Studebaker engineers performed on the 289 engine in 1956 when it was first introduced. I have the HP numbers in all configurations including gross HP with no exhaust or accessories. They were done with a Carter WCFB 4 barrel and 8.5:1 compression. With exhaust manifolds and water pump only , the engine made around 180 HP net. Pete's engine seems down about 15 HP from factory engineering pulls. Perhaps the timing should have been bumped up a bit? Also he shows the horse power as developed at only 3,800 RPMs.?? Peak H P is usually at higher RPMs ??
Good result. I must admit, after watching all of Engine Masters on MotorTrend, I've gotten used to seeing numbers north of 500HP and thought 160 was pretty low, but it makes sense for an older engine. As long as it sounds good and cruises nice, I guess it does not matter that much!
This was all about getting it to run reliably, and right for the next 150,000 miles. The goal was not high HP, just see what it could do after rebuilding.
Yeah, Dave, I would have had to build it for at least 275 HP... that can be done without hurting MPG on a 289" engine... would prolly even improve MPG over stock...
BuzzLOLOL that's why in the day we turned them into a studellac. but you could get them to run .the 259 with passmaster on the covers &Carter carb from55speedster were pretty hot.
Hello Pete You should weld an O2 bung in the exhaust and use a portable reader to check air fuel ratio, then put a bung in it when you are done. Much cheaper. Take a chance on any leaks. Live dangerous. Ken
I tune the Quadrajet by starting with the power circuit in the primaries. the reason is that the tip size of the metering rods of the ones I have are all the same size. only the tip of the rod is in the jet. so you choose the Jet to give you the AFR while into the throttle. I like about 12.5:1 to 13:1 . once I have that nailed down then I go to part throttle operation and choose the rod size that gets the metering to about 15:1 or a tad leaner. this is when the power piston by way of high engine vacuum has it sucked down placing the thick part of the rod into the jet. for example, a 42 rod has the thickness of '42 into the jet. so total metering area is the area of the jet - the area of the rod. Choose a power piston spring that doesn't go into the power circuit when light throttle application. then go to heavy throttle application to get an AFR a tad richer when the secondaries are open by choose the appropriate secondary rod. then done. with my wide band Innovative motorsports logging meter its a lot easier than using plug color to get it into the ballpark. easy peezy.
Isn't there a table that you can use as a guide to figure out what size jets to use in a carburetor for the displacement of the engine? Putting a new rebuild engine on a dyno seems like a lot of stress for it before it is broken in. What is your thoughts on that much stress? I also want to thank you for all your time in posting these videos they are very informative.
Starting an engine on a dyno has zero stress actually because the engine is just spinning. You cannot tell what jets are needed until you monitor the air/fuel mixture through the RPM range and the carb is fully open. There is no chart for that. You can come really close, but a dyno gets it perfect.
I used to use a long screwdriver to prime my stuff. but that method has its problems. I now use a kit you can buy that works with multiple engines. It seals off the oil port that would otherwise be open. clamp it down and rotate.
I had a particular interest in the series .. because. Studebaker. Wanted to know what they look like. I am personally all about the Chevrolet V8. another video series I had great interest in that someone else has was rebuilding the GMC Big Block V6. specifically the 305. love watching videos on engine architectures I am not familiar with.
Should have bumped the timing up to about 8 degrees. You should be able to get close to 190 hp with that engine. But a good series for people to watch.
I had an '83 Z-28 5.0L that put out a whopping 150hp from the factory, so there's that. I also had a '76 Corvette 5.7L that scorched the Earth with 180hp from the factory. It has to do with the heads and low compression. Did you see the pistons? The ports on the heads are far from optimal for bigger HP numbers. As Pete said, the valves are small. These were not designed to be performance engines.
EFI makes about -0- HP improvement over a properly tuned and sized carb... maybe 5 HP at the most... and if the EFI system isn't perfect for the engine, you can even lose power and MPG...
Very nice job! I'm betting that Studebaker might have fudged those numbers. It's a pretty sedate engine and Studebaker really didn't have much money for R&D in '62, but they were trying desperately to stay alive. They were pretty much on death's door by that time. You've assembled a great engine for a Hawk and it will never have to be rebuilt again! My grandparents had a white '62/289/4BBL. It sounded fantastic, but it wasn't a race car by any stretch of the imagination.
Thank you my friend. I'm sure the used all perfect engine parts and used headers install of these manifolds. Of course dyno machines were different 54 years ago. The public really had no way to check what the companies said. I'm sure the exaggerated a bit.
The motor sounds great , Studebaker sure liked Chevrolet . Or it's General Motors liked Studebaker , I see Cadillac Buick Oldsmobile Pontiac in Studebaker engines .
Hi Pete! I'm rebuilding a Pontiac 455 (bored out .030") with a stock flat tappet cam and stock valve train. I saw online that you should remove the inner springs before break in. Is this a must? Also what do you recommend for can break in (oil,oil additive, cam lube)? Thanks
Yes it is. The springs will put too much force on the cam and will ruin it before it has a chance to seat and break in. Use Royal Purple which is now Brad Penn racing oil with zinc and phosphorous added in.
You don't have to remove the inner springs for break in until the seat pressure is over 140lbs and 360lbs at the nose. You will be fine. Removing them is just an extra precaution.
Thanks for a great series, Pete! MUCH great information on engine rebuilding in general and on Studebaker engines specifically. Did you happen to compare the specs between the 2bbl and 4bbl cams? They are probably different and may have had a negative effect on the(disappointing) horsepower readings.
@@PetesGarage You might investigate the R-1 cam. It may give more power. Studebaker was looking for low end torque and gas milage. My stock '62 Hawk got 24 mpg on the highway. I had Crower cams grind a cam for it, the torque came in much stronger at 3000 rpm, but the mileage dropped to 17.
smarter to dyno it than running an engine too lean and trying to dial it in on the street and since it was a secondary problem that would be even more difficult---- Yes that does seem a bit low compared to how they rated it but could have easily been overrated, I remember a stock low level 327 2 barrel was about 210 but you don't care about performance or dragging in a car like that- just enjoy that classic, Just for fun maybe get RWHP sometime, that's probably 120-130
@@PetesGarage these engines came with either the WW 127/130 2 barrels, AFB's or carter standard 4 barrels. I have been building and dyno'ing Studebaker engines for street, racing, Bonneville and other applications for many decades. Something is very wrong with your build. Most Studebaker mechanics would tell you that the numbers are low from the factory, due to many tests and other sources. SO.... again, something is very wrong with your build to only get 160(??) hp. Did you put a shimmed head gasket on and as such reduce the compression. Nice videos, good process, and good explanation but the HP figures do not make sense.
@@3RTracing The thing that is hurting it is that I did not change the cam. I have since added some timing and adjust the carb which boosted the numbers quite a bit.
Chancy! and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use oil with Zinc additive during break-in! Ask me how I know. All who have wiped out their flat tappet cam on start-up raise you hand!
OK so I'm a dummy. The problem stemmed from the fact that I had not built an engine for several years after having built several back in the 70s and 80s and I was not aware of the removal of zinc and phosphorus from regular motor oil. An expensive lesson! I had to rebuild that motor twice.
Hey Pete, good job on the all the video's, I enjoy watching them. Where do you go for the engine dyno around here? I thought you said the name in the video but not sure. Also, I was in to talk to Paul at J&L, I'm building an 850+ hp forged LSA for my CTS-V and going to have him hone mains and cylinders along with balancing before I start assembling. While in there, I was looking at the pictures on the wall. Was that you up there with the red fox body mustang!?
Paul has a dyno in the small building and Joe Hetz does the dyno work. He is a great guy to work with. You can set up a dyno time with Paul. They test 1,000 HP + motors all the time. I did the red '82 and orange '69 Mustangs that are on his wall. Paul is a real good guy.
Okay... so I don't get the drop in horsepower... It was rated at 225 when brand new, but you say it will stay at about 165 now, and I can't reason out why that might be. Did they measure horsepower differently back then or something?... lol. Yeah... I don't get it.
Petes Garage if everything is stock but you bored 30 over, wouldn't that lower compression with more space in the cylinder but same stroke and same heads?
The purpose is to test the engine, tune the carb, and check for leaks. If the engine were in the car and a problem came up it would have to be pulled out.
Thats big numbers jump that the average joe or allot of experts wouldnt have been able to achieve with it in the car. Plus allot of engine damage may have been avoided from running lean up a hill or something.
jim dandy I have 37 degrees advanced timing but only because it a fully built forged engine and I need to run 97 prefferably 100 octane or better i have 110 octane in it now just to be safe 37 is really advanced and it's only because it naturally aspirated when I put the turbo it'll be more like 22 degrees..
@@zxtenn you're talking about TOTAL advance whereas Pete is talking about the static or maybe at-idle setting. I'm an air-cooled VW guy so we keep things at about 32 BTDC *total* and depending on the distributor set it statically at 7-5 deg BTDC.
I was surprised at the H.P.. That is sick. 225 would make a lot more sense. Being mechanical lifters, would you not use non-detergent straight 30wt. oil after break-in?
After testing hundreds of these old engines I can say they all fall 50 to 60 HP below advertised numbers. I would switch back to regular oil after a few hundred miles.
Hot Rod Magazine dyno tested a then-new 352 Ford FE that was supposed to have 300 HP. They got 200. (On an engine dyno, not a chassis dyno.) Only got to the rated 300 HP after many mods (cam, intake, exhaust and head work), and then finally to 342 HP after they bored and stroked it to 412 cubic inches. August and September 1958 issues.
+ herman452 - Great example of how the manufacturers goofed on the numbers back then. They can't get away with it now because of the easy availability of dynos. There would be lawsuits flying all over the place!
I have every issue of Hot Rod Magazine from January 1950 through December 1980. So yeah, I pulled those two issues out to refresh my memory about the exact figures. But I do remember that the 58 Ford 352 was the most overrated motor they ever tested. Almost all fell short of the advertised horsepower, though.
160HP at the crank isn´t much for a almost 5 liter engine. With the original tranny installed there will be not much @ the wheels. A Jaguar MK made 210 HP out of an 3.8l engine. I dont´t get why someone would want a rebuild w/o a higher compression for todays fuel, advance timing and a better camshaft. This would wake up the engine quite a bit w/o being too expensive.
As a Studebaker enthusiast myself, I really enjoy your series! My first new car was a 1961 ark convertible (61VL6) and at that time, being 19 years old, I was definitely into the mechanical side, and increasing performance. As I dig back in my memory bank, I believe your engine was an older one, as in 1962, Studebaker went to a full flow oil filter, which screwed onto the lower driver's side of the block. That was also the year they went to the new type intake manifold and the Carter AFB carburetor instead of the older WCFB, which I believe is what your engine has on it. The AFB was a big advance in m,y eyes, as it was available in higher CFM, and much easier to change the jets and the metering rods, without even removing the carb. Lots of fun, and fairly cheap to work on!
That's a great story....thank you very much for sharing. Yes, this one had a WCFB.
I had a '62 Hawk, and a '62 Lark, both with V-8 engines, and they both had bypass filters. My '64 Cruiser had a full flow filter. The AFB was an excellent carb. If you look at the 2bbl manifold, it is made to be a 4 bbl manifold. It looks like you could just mill the area flat where the carb sits, drill and tap holes for the bolts, and drill out the passages for the throttle plates, and you have a Studebaker 4 bbl manifold.
@@garylangley4502 You probably have earlier production engines. Studebaker (similar to Chrysler) incorporated many running changes, and I'm assuming the 1962 model year started out with engines built in 1961. In 1962, while still in College, I worked weekends in a dealership, and being low on the totem pole, I did a lot of grease jobs and oil changes. This is where I first became aware of the full flow filters, and incidentally of the need to grease the bell crank pivot point. As access to this point was through a hole in the frame for the purpose, this point often was ignored, leading to the infamous "failure" of the bearing. Here, too there were differences, with some being sleeve bearings, and others being needle bearings. You're dead on with the carb and manifold issues...a relatively easy conversion. And yes, I too really like the AFB, which in my opinion is the simplest and best 4 barrel made for the application. BTW, the AFB intake manifold cost about $20 through the parts department in those days. Wish I had bought one or more of the R4 manifolds while they could be had new!
@@neil6212 Interesting!! I did not know that the change was mid production in '62. The '64 I had used the sleeve bushings, and they were worn. In my '61 Lark, the grease fitting was broken off in the bell crank, but I used a needle adapter and I was able to grease the fitting. Apparently the previous owner did the same thing because it was well greased when I got it. I remember that Lark having 22 grease fittings. I bought that car in 1972, and at one point the oil filter blew up while I was on the freeway. It ruined the 6 cylinder engine. I found a '55 flathead 6 that I put in there, but it had oil pressure problems, however I drove it for about a year. At the time, the car had little value, but since it was from San Bernardino, it had absolutely no rust on it. I found a wrecked 1960 Cadillac and saw how similar the engine is to the Studebaker V8. So my friends and I put the 390 Cadillac engine and Hydramatic transmission in the Lark. It was surprisingly easy to do.
@@garylangley4502 I'm with you on the Caddy implant! The Studebaker V8 was virtually copied from the 50s Cadillac, so it isn't really too surprising that the install was easy! And it probably was a rocket with the gearing being in the 3.92 to 4.10 range, although the Dana 27 axle probably wouldn't like much abuse. My first new car was a 1961 Lark convertible, a 61VL6! Traded it off on a '65 Mustang 289HP. Later, I was able to buy a 61SL6 with a bad transmission. It was the same color (Ermine White) and in good shape body wise. This was in 1868. Being single, I elected to do a frame off restoration. As it ended up, I bought a wrecked '64 GT Hawk, which had an R2 with 4 spd and the usual toys. I salvaged many parts from it, and although the left front suspension was damaged, and the fuel pump broken off, the disk brake was still in good shape. I rebuilt the engine, and do a "heart-lung transplant" into the Lark, using the front and rear sway bars, the Dana 44 axle with 3.54 TT gearing, and pretty much created a monster! By the way, to do a V8 engine swap[ in the Lark, you had only to swap the left and right front motor mounts with each other, and it becomes a bolt in, although it will be necessary to use the V8 throttle linkage and re route the gas line. On R2 engines, you also need to add a fuel return line from the stock fuel filter to the tank.
Hell's bells! The standard non-power-kit (two-barrel single exhaust) is rated at 210 bhp gross. You.'ve overbored to 298 cubes. You're running a four-barrel carb, which would be rated, as you said, at 225 gross bhp. 163? Not exactly what one would expect.
It's a standard bore 289. There was not much to work with and I did not put in any performance parts. I think the rated numbers are overstated.
From what I've seen those engines do at the drag strip, I think those numbers were underrated at the factory! Those Dyno numbers seemed really low. Still, great series of videos. I'd like to see you rebuild a Rambler 327 or 287 and Dyno them
The same basic engine powered an 1962 Avanti at Bonneville to 168 mph. That version was an R3 with hotter cam and Paxton supercharger putting out 335 HP according to factory numbers. Not bad for a stock car in 1962 !
Thats' awesome! Thanks for sharing
Granatelli wouldn't let an R3 leave the Paxton shop 'til it had posted 411 horsepower on the dyno. Studebaker never advertised horsepower ratings for the Avanti engines, but the numbers bandied about with great authority are generally considered to be ridiculously understated.
Hell of a job, Pete. The engine sounds good.
And it drives like a dream
I have the Dyno Pulls that Studebaker engineers performed in 1956 when the 289 was introduced. The pulls were with a Carter WCFB carb and 8.5:1 compression ratio. The engine was tested in all configurations. This engine seems down about 15 HP from Studebaker engineering numbers for a pull in the same configuration with exhaust manifolds and water pump . Perhaps the timing needed to be advanced a bit?
Keep in mind it did not have a new cam so that is down a bit. And you are right, advancing the timing could add some, but the owner was not interested in super performance.
Excellent series on rebuilding a Studebaker V-8. Nice thorough job! You cut no corners for a quality rebuild. Yes I understand this was not built as a performance engine and the owner didn't want the timing advanced. Still it is an interesting comparison to Studebaker's engineering dyno runs. Their runs with a Carter WCFB 4 barrel , 8.2 CR, timing 8 degrees advanced, netted 208 HP @ 4,400 RPMS and 300 ft lbs of torque at 2,900 RPMs . This was with no accessories and no exhaust except for manifolds. H P required to drive the water pump only is 5 HP at 4,500 RPMs According to Studebaker engineering figures. The 289 developed 174 net HP @ 4,100 RPMs with all accessories and full exhaust installed.
It sure did need a whole lot more timing.
A couple of comments, Studebaker published max. hp at 4500 (500 higher) and max torque (500 lower) at 2800. Both of these numbers differ by about 500 RPM from this dyno run. Did notice when you were quoting the AF ratio's that you said lean when you meant rich IMHO, although it was running lean for max power. The carb air bleed jets may have been able to be adjusted to get the torque numbers in line with the factory rpm. In this design the idle air bleeds (top) effect both the idle and main jets.
It would be interesting to be able to adjust the timing and af ratio at 100 rpm intervals like what is done to tune a modern engine for racing, and see the results. See if it's possible to tune these old mechanical methods to emulate the precise control on modern machinery. Of course outside air pressure and temperature would be difficult to tune for. I believe these old carb manufacturers attempted to do just that, thus the reason for so many part numbers. Not a good idea to just slap a carb for one application onto another. OK enough. Thanks for this series as I have a 1957 supercharged Golden Hawk 289.
Great stuff Ron. We did adjust the air bleed and mixture screws, but at higher RPM's they don't do much. It took quite awhile to get it tuned. If there were a better way my dyno guy would have done it. He does 1000+ HP motors all the time. Thank you for your comment.
I understand we are attempting to make adjustments to an entirely different fuel formulation than they were designed for also, Thanks for the video.
Great work!
Those WCFB carbs are tricky, like the metering rod adjustment etc.
I've done quite a few of these on mid 50's Mopars, they do work great once dialed in, but they can be a little fussy.
They are pretty finicky. Once adjusted they do run well.
I assume standard cam, maybe 8:1 CR, and looks like an old WCFB carb.
Guy in Georgia dynoed a 289 with 10:1 CR, R1 cam, a 500 Edelbrock carb and some headwork. Got 240 horsepower. Assuming the dynoes are equally accurate, that's 80 more HP with a hotter cam, more CR, headwork and a better carb. ??? Could be, I suppose. . . .
You are correct. The only way to get more out of it is a custom grind cam and larger valves. The owner was interested in a fresh rebuild that was reliable, not a power increase.
Its good to see the engine up and running Thank you again Sir From down under Take Care
It runs awesome! Thanks and cheers mate!
👎
Very informative series. I have dabbled with an engine or two and now have my sights on a little 4 cylinder that I want to get running. I have no formal training but I learned a lot from you. Thanks.
That is great my friend. Take your time and be neat, you can do it
Love the series , learned a lot . Thank you
Thanks Tom
Pete,
I really enjoyed this video series. I am a Studebaker guy and own a 1962 pickup with a 289 and I think your step by step rebuild is a valuable guide for people working on these engines. On the subject of the lower-than-rating horsepower result, I'm wondering if the valve lift was reduced by re-using the original cam?
That could be possible, but very slightly. The valves are very small and it was not build for the 4 barrel. I'm thinking different heads would do the trick.
My 20 year old 302 with over 280,000 kilometres on it has 248HP (185kw), never been opened, has pacemaker headers, K&N Filter and sports exhaust. It's coming out soon for a rebuild and I hope to have an engine dyno video later for posting. Then a chassis dyno video when it gets tuned for best effort.
That sounds cool
4 degrees of initial advance is way to little. 14 would have been better. The maximum mechanical advance on that engine should have liked around 34 degrees. I noticed you didn't check timing advance at all. Also, the carb problem was a super common problem of the jets were reversed. The 89's should have been in the secondary and the 72's should have been in the primaries. I'll bet the car will run sloppy and rich at part throttle. Way too much primary jetting.
When the engine is installed, advance the timing at a warmed up idle by vacuum. Your highest reading is where the flame front travel is doing the most work. Then check the maximum mechanical advance and adjust the timing stop until you have 34 to 36 degrees. All timing should be in by 3000 rpms. Lots of tuning to do.
This car is coming in for some end-of-season work. I'll look into the timing. Thanks for the comment
Really looking forward to seeing the Studebaker Hawk back on the road video. Seeing the engine running on the dyno was terrific. Perhaps Studebaker fudged the rating back in 1962 to compete with the big three. Makes me wonder if the supercharged version was really 275 horsepower?
Studebaker should have been able to get 275 HP out of a 289" without a supercharger... especially in that era of high octane gasoline...
Should have...lol
keep up the good work man.
Thanks my friend
$720 compared to a new engine due to detonation is cheap insurance. Never believe advertised horse power from the 60, sometimes it's less and sometimes its more.
IT LIVES!
Great info and tips.
Finally! It should be going down the road soon.
Beautiful 259, great job! Wish your shop was in my neck of the woods.
That would be nice, it's a 289
Is a good strong 289 at that!
Engine prefix was. P not V so it’s definitely a 289.
Your technical expertise, and your attention to detail was very impressive,. I was however disappointed with the results.
So was I
Thanks Pete, I appreciate your videos
Thank you my friend
Wow, renault has a 1.6 Liter turbo Diesel producing up to 180 PS and torque figures north 300 ft.lb. Got to love the french diesels
The Engine is called 1.6dci and Mercedes uses it as Well in the B, A, CLA class. Hope you get to See those engines in the US cause I have heard you're not allowed to import french cars.
This engine is 54 years old. It was never designed for HP. There are many new engines that out perform it. Thank you for sharing that information with us.
Makes one appreciate modern technology and the hp being pumped out today in our engines. And many lasting 200,000 miles or more.
Keep going what you are doing sir.
I have a copy of the original Dyno pulls that Studebaker engineers performed on the 289 engine in 1956 when it was first introduced. I have the HP numbers in all configurations including gross HP with no exhaust or accessories. They were done with a Carter WCFB 4 barrel and 8.5:1 compression. With exhaust manifolds and water pump only , the engine made around 180 HP net. Pete's engine seems down about 15 HP from factory engineering pulls. Perhaps the timing should have been bumped up a bit? Also he shows the horse power as developed at only 3,800 RPMs.?? Peak H P is usually at higher RPMs ??
Good result. I must admit, after watching all of Engine Masters on MotorTrend, I've gotten used to seeing numbers north of 500HP and thought 160 was pretty low, but it makes sense for an older engine. As long as it sounds good and cruises nice, I guess it does not matter that much!
This was all about getting it to run reliably, and right for the next 150,000 miles. The goal was not high HP, just see what it could do after rebuilding.
Yeah, Dave, I would have had to build it for at least 275 HP... that can be done without hurting MPG on a 289" engine... would prolly even improve MPG over stock...
I was hoping for a bit more horses but your explanation is sound reasoning ,thanks , I learned stuff.
BuzzLOLOL that's why in the day we turned them into a studellac. but you could get them to run .the 259 with passmaster on the covers &Carter carb from55speedster were pretty hot.
Hello Pete
You should weld an O2 bung in the exhaust and use a portable reader to check air fuel ratio, then put a bung in it when you are done. Much cheaper. Take a chance on any leaks. Live dangerous.
Ken
There is an O2 sensor in the exhaust, that is how the mixture is measured.
I tune the Quadrajet by starting with the power circuit in the primaries. the reason is that the tip size of the metering rods of the ones I have are all the same size. only the tip of the rod is in the jet. so you choose the Jet to give you the AFR while into the throttle. I like about 12.5:1 to 13:1 . once I have that nailed down then I go to part throttle operation and choose the rod size that gets the metering to about 15:1 or a tad leaner. this is when the power piston by way of high engine vacuum has it sucked down placing the thick part of the rod into the jet. for example, a 42 rod has the thickness of '42 into the jet. so total metering area is the area of the jet - the area of the rod. Choose a power piston spring that doesn't go into the power circuit when light throttle application. then go to heavy throttle application to get an AFR a tad richer when the secondaries are open by choose the appropriate secondary rod. then done. with my wide band Innovative motorsports logging meter its a lot easier than using plug color to get it into the ballpark. easy peezy.
That's great information, thanks for sharing
I think their goal was having enough torque and 250 is plenty . enjoyed the series ,
Thanks John. 250 is plenty at 2,500 cruising speed.
John McKamy this was a Lousey build bro and the proof is in the #'s lol 160HP! That is pathetic
That's all those engines produced in stock configuration... it's a stock rebuild...
Isn't there a table that you can use as a guide to figure out what size jets to use in a carburetor for the displacement of the engine? Putting a new rebuild engine on a dyno seems like a lot of stress for it before it is broken in. What is your thoughts on that much stress? I also want to thank you for all your time in posting these videos they are very informative.
Starting an engine on a dyno has zero stress actually because the engine is just spinning. You cannot tell what jets are needed until you monitor the air/fuel mixture through the RPM range and the carb is fully open. There is no chart for that. You can come really close, but a dyno gets it perfect.
I use an old distributer and 1 inch drill to prime my engines
That's is a great idea
I used to use a long screwdriver to prime my stuff. but that method has its problems. I now use a kit you can buy that works with multiple engines. It seals off the oil port that would otherwise be open. clamp it down and rotate.
I had a particular interest in the series .. because. Studebaker. Wanted to know what they look like. I am personally all about the Chevrolet V8. another video series I had great interest in that someone else has was rebuilding the GMC Big Block V6. specifically the 305. love watching videos on engine architectures I am not familiar with.
Very cool!
Should have bumped the timing up to about 8 degrees. You should be able to get close to 190 hp with that engine. But a good series for people to watch.
I did that after a couple weeks
160hp from 5 ltrs? I appreciate that its an old design but with new bits inside would cost no more than the old design bits. It still needs waking up.
Stephen A Agreed. My motorbike makes 100hp from 600cc.
It's a very mild came with small valves. You could get over 400 HP out of it but it would be costly.
I had an '83 Z-28 5.0L that put out a whopping 150hp from the factory, so there's that. I also had a '76 Corvette 5.7L that scorched the Earth with 180hp from the factory.
It has to do with the heads and low compression. Did you see the pistons? The ports on the heads are far from optimal for bigger HP numbers. As Pete said, the valves are small. These were not designed to be performance engines.
Well, motorcycles rev a lot higher as well. As HP is just a function of torque x RPMs, this doesn't say much. Peak torque numbers is where it's at :)
+ EastingAndNorthing - Torque x RPM / 5252 = Horsepower
Such a small part as a fuel jet makes a hell of a difference in hp. How much hp do you think this engine would make on EFI? Stewart, Australia
It sure does. Getting more out of this engine would require a bigger cam and heads with bigger valves. EFI is next, so the owner would like
EFI makes about -0- HP improvement over a properly tuned and sized carb... maybe 5 HP at the most... and if the EFI system isn't perfect for the engine, you can even lose power and MPG...
BuzzLOLOL tnanks for your info.
Very nice job! I'm betting that Studebaker might have fudged those numbers. It's a pretty sedate engine and Studebaker really didn't have much money for R&D in '62, but they were trying desperately to stay alive. They were pretty much on death's door by that time. You've assembled a great engine for a Hawk and it will never have to be rebuilt again!
My grandparents had a white '62/289/4BBL. It sounded fantastic, but it wasn't a race car by any stretch of the imagination.
Thank you my friend. I'm sure the used all perfect engine parts and used headers install of these manifolds. Of course dyno machines were different 54 years ago. The public really had no way to check what the companies said. I'm sure the exaggerated a bit.
OMG 163>GREAT JOB !!
The motor sounds great , Studebaker sure liked Chevrolet . Or it's General Motors liked Studebaker , I see Cadillac Buick Oldsmobile Pontiac in Studebaker engines .
Seems like they stole parts from everyone
it must be a messy proposition when it comes time to change the oil filter given the way it is positioned.
Even better, the oil filter was an option, and it's passive
Definitely was a messy job changing the oil filter. Had to let it drain before removing and wrapping rag around base when removing the filter.
Hi Pete! I'm rebuilding a Pontiac 455 (bored out .030") with a stock flat tappet cam and stock valve train. I saw online that you should remove the inner springs before break in. Is this a must? Also what do you recommend for can break in (oil,oil additive, cam lube)? Thanks
Yes it is. The springs will put too much force on the cam and will ruin it before it has a chance to seat and break in. Use Royal Purple which is now Brad Penn racing oil with zinc and phosphorous added in.
Pete's Garage thanks Pete, I appreciate it!
Nehemiah Branson removing the springs is something i never would have thought of.
You don't have to remove the inner springs for break in until the seat pressure is over 140lbs and 360lbs at the nose. You will be fine. Removing them is just an extra precaution.
Thanks for a great series, Pete! MUCH great information on engine rebuilding in general and on Studebaker engines specifically. Did you happen to compare the specs between the 2bbl and 4bbl cams? They are probably different and may have had a negative effect on the(disappointing) horsepower readings.
Thanks Edward! While doing research for this engine I found a great deal of info. Most if not all of the numbers were a bit inflated.
@@PetesGarage You might investigate the R-1 cam. It may give more power. Studebaker was looking for low end torque and gas milage. My stock '62 Hawk got 24 mpg on the highway. I had Crower cams grind a cam for it, the torque came in much stronger at 3000 rpm, but the mileage dropped to 17.
@@garylangley4502 Great idea, thank you. The guy who owns the car is always having things done so maybe I'll talk him into some power upgrades.
smarter to dyno it than running an engine too lean and trying to dial it in on the street and since it was a secondary problem that would be even more difficult----
Yes that does seem a bit low compared to how they rated it but could have easily been overrated, I remember a stock low level 327 2 barrel was about 210 but you don't care about performance or dragging in a car like that- just enjoy that classic,
Just for fun maybe get RWHP sometime, that's probably 120-130
Thanks for the comment Jim
Well a stock standard 259 V8 Studebaker Motor produces 180 HP something is not right
This engine originally came with a 2 barrel. A 4 barrel carb and manifold was put on and it very well could end up hurting HP because of flow mismatch
@@PetesGarage these engines came with either the WW 127/130 2 barrels, AFB's or carter standard 4 barrels. I have been building and dyno'ing Studebaker engines for street, racing, Bonneville and other applications for many decades. Something is very wrong with your build. Most Studebaker mechanics would tell you that the numbers are low from the factory, due to many tests and other sources. SO.... again, something is very wrong with your build to only get 160(??) hp. Did you put a shimmed head gasket on and as such reduce the compression. Nice videos, good process, and good explanation but the HP figures do not make sense.
@@3RTracing The thing that is hurting it is that I did not change the cam. I have since added some timing and adjust the carb which boosted the numbers quite a bit.
I haven't seen anyone prime an oil pump manually in yearsssss. Everyone just relies on the assembly lube.
Chancy! and ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS use oil with Zinc additive during break-in! Ask me how I know. All who have wiped out their flat tappet cam on start-up raise you hand!
It only takes 5 minutes and it ensures the engine is full of oil before firing it up. It's a good practice to follow.
I know many guys who would not raise their hands Edward...lol
OK so I'm a dummy. The problem stemmed from the fact that I had not built an engine for several years after having built several back in the 70s and 80s and I was not aware of the removal of zinc and phosphorus from regular motor oil. An expensive lesson! I had to rebuild that motor twice.
There are no dummies here.I've had to rebuild engines 2 and 3 times for various reasons. Nobody is perfect.
Brave man using a Fram filter
I usually use Wix on and HP motors
I liked it better when you tested it at 33,000 rpm, wow 33,000 rpms and only 162 HP, but those Studebakers are tough engines.
I misspoke, it's easy to do
Nice!!
Hey Pete, good job on the all the video's, I enjoy watching them. Where do you go for the engine dyno around here? I thought you said the name in the video but not sure. Also, I was in to talk to Paul at J&L, I'm building an 850+ hp forged LSA for my CTS-V and going to have him hone mains and cylinders along with balancing before I start assembling. While in there, I was looking at the pictures on the wall. Was that you up there with the red fox body mustang!?
Paul has a dyno in the small building and Joe Hetz does the dyno work. He is a great guy to work with. You can set up a dyno time with Paul. They test 1,000 HP + motors all the time. I did the red '82 and orange '69 Mustangs that are on his wall. Paul is a real good guy.
how do you figure out compression ratio and why is that important?
By calculating cylinder volume. It is important because it tells you what octane fuel you will need and how much performance you can expect.
and how do you calculate cylinder volume you have a video on this if not can you make one?
Hey Pete what do you recommend to break in a remanufactured engine?
Those are tough, but a good break in oil and doing hard acceleration for the first 500 miles will help.
@@PetesGarage don't you mean doing no hard acceleration until the rings seat, in the first 500 miles?
Okay... so I don't get the drop in horsepower... It was rated at 225 when brand new, but you say it will stay at about 165 now, and I can't reason out why that might be. Did they measure horsepower differently back then or something?... lol. Yeah... I don't get it.
I could not replace the cam, none are available. That is most of it
I thought the 289s came with 210-225 hp stock? Why would it run 160 especially after a rebuild?
I could not find a new cam
Will a 55 to 56 studebaker v8 fit in my 1964 studebaker which a six cylinder
Yes
I missed hearing you say what the compression ratio is. Is it stock?
Everything is stock. The only modification is bored 0.030 with larger pistons.
Petes Garage if everything is stock but you bored 30 over, wouldn't that lower compression with more space in the cylinder but same stroke and same heads?
Very slightly.
8.5:1 is stock on the basic 289.
So how did the factory get 225 Horsepower and you have only 163 Horsepower ?? 5 star videos !!😀
They probably had the best parts and to reference
Why did you not put the whole car on the dyno?
The purpose is to test the engine, tune the carb, and check for leaks. If the engine were in the car and a problem came up it would have to be pulled out.
Did you change out the PRIMARY jets?
Always if needed
Thats big numbers jump that the average joe or allot of experts wouldnt have been able to achieve with it in the car. Plus allot of engine damage may have been avoided from running lean up a hill or something.
It's cheap insurance to dyno tune first
Did I hear you correctly?? 4* Advanced is ALL?????? If so, throw some timing at it and see where she goes..... Maybe I heard you incorrectly.....
Nope, that's all the owner wanted. This in not going in a muscle car, it's a cruiser that will be driven on road trips.
Pete, don't most engine's run best at about 36-39 total advance?
Standard timing with the vacuum disconnected is 4 degrees for this engine
jim dandy I have 37 degrees advanced timing but only because it a fully built forged engine and I need to run 97 prefferably 100 octane or better i have 110 octane in it now just to be safe 37 is really advanced and it's only because it naturally aspirated when I put the turbo it'll be more like 22 degrees..
@@zxtenn you're talking about TOTAL advance whereas Pete is talking about the static or maybe at-idle setting. I'm an air-cooled VW guy so we keep things at about 32 BTDC *total* and depending on the distributor set it statically at 7-5 deg BTDC.
I was surprised at the H.P.. That is sick. 225 would make a lot more sense. Being mechanical lifters, would you not use non-detergent straight 30wt. oil after break-in?
After testing hundreds of these old engines I can say they all fall 50 to 60 HP below advertised numbers. I would switch back to regular oil after a few hundred miles.
Hot Rod Magazine dyno tested a then-new 352 Ford FE that was supposed to have 300 HP. They got 200. (On an engine dyno, not a chassis dyno.) Only got to the rated 300 HP after many mods (cam, intake, exhaust and head work), and then finally to 342 HP after they bored and stroked it to 412 cubic inches. August and September 1958 issues.
+ herman452 - Great example of how the manufacturers goofed on the numbers back then. They can't get away with it now because of the easy availability of dynos. There would be lawsuits flying all over the place!
That is an incredible memory, unless you keep the 1958 issue handy : )
I have every issue of Hot Rod Magazine from January 1950 through December 1980. So yeah, I pulled those two issues out to refresh my memory about the exact figures. But I do remember that the 58 Ford 352 was the most overrated motor they ever tested. Almost all fell short of the advertised horsepower, though.
160HP at the crank isn´t much for a almost 5 liter engine. With the original tranny installed there will be not much @ the wheels.
A Jaguar MK made 210 HP out of an 3.8l engine.
I dont´t get why someone would want a rebuild w/o a higher compression for todays fuel, advance timing and a better camshaft. This would wake up the engine quite a bit w/o being too expensive.
That is true, however, there is a cost factor and what the owner wants.
Efi sounds a lot nicer.
It sure will next year
So Studebaker straight up lied about hp #s?
I think everyone kinda boosted the numbers